2:54 AM
Washington politicians and free-spending liberals may hate the thought, but I love the fact that less money is coming into the federal government. Reduced tax revenue combined with much needed defense spending may force the government to act more inline with its own constitution.

2:11 PM
Yesterday, one George got fired, while another one should have. The 9.11 attacks were the greatest intelligence failure in U.S. history. But President Bush still has "a lot of confidence" in CIA Director George Tennet. Bush may have faith in Tennet, but I don't. He should have been fired as soon as the fires were put out at the Pentagon. The blame game is looking a little like Waco: everybody says they're sorry it happened, but everybody keeps their jobs. I'm on Sen. Shelby's (R-AL) side when he says, "We need a rapid response. And, I'm afraid that the calcified bureaucracies of our national security institutions are not capable of rapid change." The Agency needs a shaking up.

2:02 PM
It's embarassing for Reagan National Airport to still be closed with no idea when it will reopen. If there's a danger, at the very least, officials should say so. There are thousands of people in limbo who depend on that airport. Such uncertainty isn't doing them any good.

5:40 PM
A war on global terrorism is impractical. There are so many groups out there and only one or a handful took part on the 9.11 attacks. An open-ended quest to rid the world of terrorism would be a bigger failure than the War on Drugs. Terrorists would still exist and would attempt counterstrikes.

The U.S. response must be focused on the groups behind the recent attacks, the nations that harbored or supported them, and any terror groups or nations that pose a direct, immediate threat to national security. Much of this will be done through covert operations, but the occasional blatant military strike will be called for (think Libya).

To address Mike's question: the U.S. may be coordinating with Britain, but the U.S. shouldn't go after the IRA unless they took part in the attacks.

Phil Zimmerman was upset over the loss of life from the attacks on 9.11, not because he developed technology that could have helped the terrorists keep their plans hidden. Zimmerman writes on Slashdot, "Read my lips: I have no regrets about developing PGP."

Zimmerman shouldn't be looked at as a villian in anyway. What he did was valuable to freedom lovers world-wide. He allowed any computer user access to powerful encryption. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

2:02 AM
If NASA can build a satellite that can catch a comet millions of miles away, we can certainly build a missile defense shield. Unproven technology: I don't think so after the journey of Deep Space 1.

12:37 PM
The fight over school vouchers will come to a head next year. The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the constitutionality of Cleveland's voucher program.

Voucher opponents should actually hope the Supreme Court allows vouchers. If vouchers are thrown out, parents will still search for ways to get their kids out of failing public schools. Homeschooling will rapidly grow, and there will be serious talk of removing government from education, which isn't a bad idea.

4:49 PM
George Reisman demonstrates that free-market advocates can offer sensible solutions to these trying times. Instead of taking a knee-jerk neo-isolationist approach to dealing with world terrorism, Reisman aims for the source of Islamic terrorist funding: OPEC oil. A free market in energy production would reduce dependence on OPEC oil. That would lower the price of oil and reduce the money available to fund terrorism.

11:31 AM
If it wasn't for the September 11 attacks, Andrea Yates would be America's biggest story. The mother who killed her five children was found competent to stand trial.

The angle that interests me is if she's found guilty, should she be put to death. The crimes took place in Texas, so the death penalty is virtually assured. But should it be? After seeing the carnage of 9.11, many anti-death penalty advocates are all gung-ho about going to war and seeking retribution. How does that differ from "seeking justice" by killing Andrea Yates? I'm still opposed to the death penalty, but that view must be reconciled with my hawkish stance internationally.